Can we talk about the second law of thermodynamics? Because I don't quite see why it should hold.
As far as I understand it, it is merely a a convenient assumption concerning the geometry of the state space. However it is well conceible that the actual global state space does not need to have this property. So where's the evidence for this global assumption? Lack of counterevidence is not sufficient.
Isaac Mitchell
I'm not an expert, but doesn't the evidence come from observing the evolution of phase space for a fuckton of systems?
Kevin Gray
Monkey poster kys
Ayden Young
It only holds true for isolated systems. What you should be asking is why we consider the universe a closed system.
Oh, also, science can't prove shit, can only disprove, and laws are observations of the universe, distinct from theories yo.
Luke Baker
The law describes the behavior of the system. It's a statistic by definition. With any law, if you zoom into the system far enough, you'll see cracks.
Elijah Roberts
> merely a convenient assumption concerning the geometry of the state space 2nd law is just the statement that states of a thermodynamically isolated system will naturally progress towards those with a higher entropy. as says though, the progression of individual microstates of a system doesn't necessarily have to obey that law
calling the 2nd law an assumption is really giving it too much credit, it's mainly just probability, entropy is 'always increasing' because there are far, far more high entropy configurations for a system to choose from.
Blake Russell
>lack of counter evidence is not sufficient except it is.
statiscal mechanics provides a reasonably simple explanation of macroscopic thermodynamics, and even though entropy is sort of a fuzzy concept, if it works, it works. A scientific theory only needs to fit the data and be falsifiable
Christopher Williams
convenient assumptions and lack of counterevidence is exactly what science is about you sound confused about what science is, I suggest reading Popper
Angel Rivera
>Popper no
Asher Cox
what do you recommend for someone to learn what science is?
Josiah Gutierrez
Read any science textbook.
John Ward
science doesn't study science. you should know this.
Luis Collins
Introductory physics books tend to start with an explanation of the scientific method in the preface or in the first chapter.
Brody Johnson
why would you read a simplistic, usually wrong, short note on what science is, instead of reading it for real?
Lincoln Bailey
That's what I'm asking you. You recommend to read Popper's simplistic outdated bullshit instead of studying science.
Lucas Thomas
it's ridiculous to suggest that the short notes on the scientific method in the introduction to elementary textbooks are better for understanding science than modern philosophy of science.
Christopher Harris
Not an argument.
Nathaniel Russell
cool, fuck off then. it's clear you're just being contrarian and never studied philosophy of science.
Josiah Barnes
"Philosophy of science" is the "we wuz kangs" of academia. A bunch of people who were unqualified to contribute to actual research prefer to circlejerk about their oh so deep meta-analysis of the scientific method as if it wasn't trivially known by every scientist.
Dylan Williams
if you don't care about a topic, then do not butt into conversations on the topic.
James Clark
Exactly. So please stay out of science discussions, if your background is only pop sci tier pseudo-philosophy.
Sebastian Gonzalez
...
Adrian Turner
what an embarrassment of a thread
bump
Lucas Johnson
there was a clear question about philosophy of science involved.
>it is merely a a convenient assumption >Lack of counterevidence is not sufficient.
I replied to that. You butted in to say "hurr this topic is retarded". That's autistic. The fact that I bothered to learn a bit of philosophy of science doesn't mean my background is "pop sci tier pseudo-philosophy".
Evan Morris
>haha you guys are retarded arguing on the internet and calling other people retards >fucking retards lmao >im so smart
Austin Phillips
I didn't say the topic is retarded. OP's question is relevant and interesting. Recommending Popper is retarded though. Obviously you have nothing insightful to contribute beyond pop sci platitudes.
Nathaniel Brown
the study of what science is is not pop sci pop sci is something pretending to be science philosophy of science clearly isn't science, you can't study something from inside and mostly this kind of question in Veeky Forums is a mix of the poster not understanding the material well enough and not understanding what science is.
Henry Price
>the study of what science is is not pop sci There is no need for a "study". We all know what science is.
>pop sci is something pretending to be science Nope. Pop sci is pretending to be deep and pseudo-intellectual while only spouting trivial superficial factoids. The so called "philosophy of science" does exactly the same.
>you can't study something from inside Yes, we can. It's called introspection.
>and not understanding what science is. Speak for yourself.
Michael Long
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine. - Swear - Ad hominem; Call people names - Don't provide counter-arguments - Reject realism and the scientific consensus That's ok. Just don't loop. Looping is cancer.
Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant. You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist. That is wrong irrational. :D